Selectivity and Shape in the Design of Forward-Forward Goodness Functions

The Forward-Forward (FF) algorithm trains each layer locally, so that a scalar goodness - the sum of squared activations - is high on real inputs and low on contrastive ones, with activations normalized between layers. Both choices are usually treated as heuristics. Under an explicit generative model they are not: the squared goodness is the sufficient statistic of a likelihood-ratio test between two zero-mean populations differing in scale, and the FF threshold is its boundary. It generalizes: anisotropic populations yield a Mahalanobis goodness, the plain square being its isotropic case; heavy-tailed populations yield a saturating statistic whose slope is a posterior precision - divisive normalization - with bounded evidence and an advantage only under aggregation. The same lens characterizes the inter-layer normalization: it must remove the length while preserving per-coordinate energy, explaining a depth collapse we observe under unit-norm normalization; and the pairwise objective admits a scale-inflation shortcut that a whitened goodness removes.

The Forward-Forward algorithm eliminates global gradient flow and full network activations storage. However, in convolutional settings, existing BP-free FF methods significantly under-perform backpropagation on complex benchmarks such as ImageNet-100 and Tiny-ImageNet. We identify this gap as a structural bottleneck in goodness extraction: standard sum-of-squares formulation collapses feature volumes into channel-wise activation energies which omits critical second-order dependencies. To address this, we propose a framework centered on three key components. First, Bi-axis Covariance Goodness(BiCovG) explicitly augments the standard goodness function with structured second-order information along two axes: cross-channel projections that model inter-feature covariance, and nested multi-scale aggregation that encodes spatial correlation statistics. This provides a tractable approximation to covariance-aware goodness without the prohibitive O(C^2) complexity of explicit matrix estimation. Second, a lightweight Logistic Fusion module aggregates layer-wise predictions, amplifying the contribution of deeper representations. Third, the Feature Alignment Layer(FAL) introduces a zero-initialized correction at block boundaries to mitigate representation misalignment in deep locally trained networks. By introducing these three components, we effectively double the depth of viable Forward-Forward learning, extending robust layer utilization from shallow baselines to 16 layer architectures like VGG-16. The resulting BP-free model achieves 73.01% on ImageNet-100 and 50.30% on Tiny-ImageNet. As a practical extension, Hybrid Goodness Blocks control the scope of gradient propagation via configurable block sizes, further narrowing the ImageNet-100 gap to 3.6% and matching BP on Tiny-ImageNet, while still reducing peak memory by approximately 50% relative to BP.

Forward-Forward (FF) training lets each layer learn from a local goodness criterion. In cumulative-goodness variants, later layers can inherit a task that earlier layers have partly separated. We formalize this as layer free-riding: under the softplus FF criterion, the class-discrimination gradient reaching block $d$ decays exponentially with the positive margin accumulated by earlier blocks (Theorem 3.1); a squared-hinge barrier reproduces the pathology. History-free and hardness-gated repairs raise deeper-layer separation by up to $5\times$ on CIFAR-100 and $45\times$ in an 8-block CIFAR-10 model, yet these and a depth-scaled auxiliary term move accuracy by under one percentage point among non-degenerate variants; on Tiny ImageNet, a harder cross-dataset check of the selected configuration, layer health likewise does not track accuracy. A theory-derived attenuation-compensated objective raises deepest-block separation $5.9\times$ at a consistent cost in the FF classifier's own accuracy that a probe trained on the frozen features recovers; in a smaller CIFAR-10 control, most of its separation gain comes from dropping the depth-scaled auxiliary term it replaces. Accuracy invariance is a property of the deployed sum-based scoring rule under redistribution (Proposition 3.2) and, empirically, of the structured trained readouts we test, not of what the network learns: retrained variants disagree on 13-26% of test predictions. Architecture and augmentation matter far more than the non-degenerate training rules studied. Cumulative free-riding is therefore a real and repairable pathology, but for the softplus and squared-hinge objectives, architectures, and datasets we study, it is not the dominant factor limiting accuracy.